New cellphone ban stymies district court visitors

Sunday

Mar 19, 2017 at 6:53 PMMar 19, 2017 at 8:53 PM

Haven Orecchio-Egresitz @HavenCCT

BARNSTABLE — A new rule restricting the possession of cellphones inside the Barnstable District Court got off to a bumpy start when court officers were turning away visitors who said they had nowhere to store the devices.

On March 10, Barnstable District Court began a 60-day trial period prohibiting cellphones in the courthouse by everyone other than jurors, court employees, volunteers, attorneys and those who intend to use the phone to present evidence in the courtroom, according to trial court spokeswoman Erika Gully-Santiago.

The policy also allows people to seek an exception to the restriction on a case-by-case basis with the review of a judge, Gully-Santiago said.

“There were two recent incidents of court officers securing courtrooms and photos were being taken on cellphones,” she said.

During those instances, the court officers ordered all cellphones to be turned off in the courtroom, but it prompted the first justices, or the top judges, of the district and juvenile courts to meet and discuss changing the cellphone policy in the courthouse, she said.

On March 13, after a short debate with security officers at the district court, 18-year-old Jenna Gagnon sat on a curb outside of the courthouse waiting for her boyfriend to finish court business.

Gagnon’s mother dropped the couple off so they had nowhere to store the phones, she said. Gagnon held them in her hands while waiting outside in the cold.

“I asked him, ‘Can you hold it inside a drawer or something?'" Gagnon said, adding that the court officer declined.

On Wednesday, an unusually long line extended out the doors of the district courthouse with many people being turned around by security officers who told them to put their phones in their cars.

“Security staff has been advised that unless an exception to the cellphone restriction applies, the holder of the phone is to be instructed to leave the phone in the car or with someone outside the courthouse,” said Jeff Morrow, trial court security director, in a statement. “If the holder of the phone does not have that option, the security staff has been instructed to allow the holder of the phone to bring the cellphone into the courthouse, but to leave the cellphone turned off while inside. To the extent that any individual security officer may have misunderstood that policy, the first justices have confirmed with the security department chiefs that the policy has been clarified.”

Barnstable District Court is not the first courthouse in the state to restrict phone possession. Falmouth District Court has had a longstanding policy banning the devices.

Falmouth defense attorney Drew Segadelli said that select courthouses began changing their policies based on security risks posed by individuals who may use the cameras on their phones to take pictures of judges, jurors, defendants or witnesses in criminal cases, potentially putting them in risk of harm.

“Many courts say no cellphones at all because of those truly good reasons,” Segadelli said. Others, however, appear to use it as a way to minimize distractions caused by noise created by the phone.

“The bottom line is, this is unfortunate. There is no uniformity. Some courts allow cellphones but in others, they think it’s some sort of explosive device,” Segadelli said, adding that those who don’t drive to the courthouses are often left hiding their phones under trees or asking their attorneys to get the devices into the building. “It stops our ability to contact them as well. It's very problematic.”

There are, however, routine instances of court officers reminding those in courtrooms to turn off their phones to no avail, including a recent distraction in Brockton Superior Court when a Michael Jackson ringtone played during Segadelli's closing argument in a murder trial, he said.

Robert Galibois, a defense attorney based in Kingston who often practices on the Cape, suggested the trial court adopt a system similar to federal courts, which allows members of the public to check their phones and other electronic devices at the door and stores them in a guarded cubbyhole.

“Security at the courthouse must remain an ongoing priority,” he said in a text message. “Hopefully resources can be allotted to provide for storage of phones from the public as the federal court so provides. For venues where many are dependent on public transportation it is unrealistic that they would leave a phone at home.”

In November, new rules approved by the state Supreme Judicial Court, which are intended to increase the public’s access to court records in the state, went into effect. The rules allow the public to use cellphone cameras to make copies of documents, but only at locations where devices are allowed in the building.